TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 22 February 2024

DOI 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

InClass – an instrument to assess

OPEN ACCESS classroom management in
inclusive and special education
EDITED BY
Brianna L. Kennedy,
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

REVIEWED BY
Khalil Gholami,
with a focus on heterogeneous
University of Helsinki, Finland
Ariana Garrote,
University of Applied Sciences and Arts
learning groups
Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland

*CORRESPONDENCE
Stephanie Lutz 1*, Anne Frey 2, Astrid Rank 1 and
Stephanie Lutz Markus Gebhardt 3
[Link]@[Link]
Department of Education Science, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany, 2 Pädagogische
1
RECEIVED 10October 2023
Hochschule Vorarlberg, Feldkirch, Austria, 3 Department of Education Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-
ACCEPTED 12 February 2024
Universität, Munich, Germany
PUBLISHED 22 February 2024

CITATION
Lutz S, Frey A, Rank A and Gebhardt M (2024) Organizing lessons for heterogeneous learning groups is a challenge for student
InClass – an instrument to assess classroom
teachers and novice teachers. To observe and improve classroom management
management in inclusive and special
education with a focus on heterogeneous during student teaching, we have developed an assessment tool. The aim
learning groups. of this study is to evaluate and improve the instrument “Scale for Classroom
Front. Educ. 9:1316059.
Management in Inclusive Schools (InClass)” with data from 480 student
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059
teachers in internships at elementary or special schools in Germany and Austria.
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Lutz, Frey, Rank and Gebhardt. This is
The instrument consists of the three dimensions Adaptive Teaching Scale (ATS),
an open-access article distributed under the Relationship Scale (RS), Behavior Management Scale (BMS). Confirmatory factor
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution analyses revealed good reliable values (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06,
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
SRMR = 0.04) for the three-factor InClass model and could confirm the
provided the original author(s) and the theoretically developed scales. The latent correlations were between r = 0.74
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the and r = 0.63. Teachers in elementary schools also showed latent correlations
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
between the three dimensions and their assessment of the implementation of
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction inclusive education in the school ranging from r = 0.51 to r = 0.84. In order to
is permitted which does not comply with meet the individual needs of all students, with and without special educational
these terms.
needs (SEN), novice teachers in particular should be supported in dealing with
heterogeneous learning groups and in using effective classroom management.
Instruments such as InClass help student teachers evaluate and reflect on
instruction and therefore have an important contribution to teacher education.

KEYWORDS

classroom management, InClass, inclusive education, special education, student

teachers, special educational needs (SEN)

1 Introduction
Since the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD, United Nations, 2006), many European countries have revised their education laws,
regulations, and targets to promote inclusive education. Every school must be well prepared
to provide access to effective education for all children, especially those with special
educational needs (SEN). Students with SEN need to be individually and effectively supported
to maximize their academic and social development. Both practicing and prospective teachers
should have extensive knowledge of special teaching strategies that can be adapted to students’

Frontiers in Education 01 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

learning needs and improve their academic performance (Krämer Questionnaire [“Linzer Diagnosebogen zur Klassenführung” (LDK),
et al., 2021; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Mayr et al., 2018], the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS,
Education, 2022). However, inclusive education is more than just Pianta et al., 2008), the Questionnaire on Instructional Behaviour
effective teaching, as it must always include social concepts of (QIB, Perry et al., 2006), and the Classroom Management Self Efficacy
disability and special educational needs (Gebhardt et al., 2022). Instrument (CMSEI, Slater and Main, 2020). The Linz Questionnaire
Therefore, it is essential to question to what extent inclusive education LDK is commonly used in educational research in German-speaking
differs from regular education (Hornby, 2014). Recognizing the countries (Krammer et al., 2021) and available for free use in practice.
heterogeneity and diversity of individuals within a group is crucial in Therefore, we provide a detailed overview of this questionnaire. LDK
any pedagogical approach. is designed for students, teachers, and interns to evaluate classroom
Since classroom management is a crucial factor in good teaching management, specifically at the elementary and secondary levels. 24
and in creating a positive classroom climate, could it not also classroom management strategies are essential to the Linz concept of
be essential for inclusion? It serves the goals of inclusion and classroom leadership, also referred to as the “Linzer Konzept der
participation (Soodak and McCarthy, 2006). By fostering a conducive Klassenführung” (LKK). Its strategies include displaying empathetic
learning environment, classroom management effectively supports understanding, rapid intervention in the event of classroom
students in excelling both academically and socially (Korpershoek disruptions, and clear structuring of lessons. These strategies can
et al., 2016; Lane et al., 2022). If all students’ personality development be grouped into categories or three higher-order factors that
and specific learning requirements are taken into account, classroom concentrate on teacher actions, competencies, and attitudes that
management is a priori inclusive (Frey, 2021). Hence, we should view contribute to stimulating student learning, minimizing classroom
the concept of classroom management through an inclusive lens. disruptions, and shaping students’ attitudes toward the teacher and the
subject (Mayr et al., 2021). The factors are instructional clarity,
teacher-student relationship and performance monitoring (Krammer
2 Defining concepts of classroom et al., 2021). The LDK questionnaire is designed for both student
management teachers and experienced educators seeking to gain clarity on their
pedagogical actions in the classroom or in relation to a specific
There are varying concepts of classroom management. Evertson subject. It prompts the respondent to primarily assess the lesson, with
and Weinstein (2006) define classroom management as “the actions only a few questions about the class or students.
teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates
both academic and social–emotional learning” (Evertson and
Weinstein, 2006 p. 4). Emmer and Sabornie (2015) incorporate 3 Classroom management in
different perspectives in their interpretation: “Classroom management heterogeneous classes
is clearly about establishing and maintaining order in a group-based
educational system whose goals include student learning as well as To address the growing diversity of students, it is crucial for
social and emotional growth. It also includes actions and strategies teachers to effectively meet the individual needs of each student and
that prevent, correct, and redirect inappropriate student behavior” differentiate their instruction. According to Pozas et al. (2020),
(Emmer and Sabornie, 2015 p. 8). teachers currently view their teaching as more group-oriented and less
The key components of effective classroom management are focused on individual students. Although many regular school
evident in these definitions: maximizing instructional time, organizing teachers have positive attitudes towards inclusion, they are very
classroom activities to enhance academic achievement, and utilizing concerned about its implementation (Miesera et al., 2018). They have
proactive behavior management strategies (Simonsen et al., 2008; concerns that they do not have sufficient knowledge and skills to take
Scott and Nakamura, 2022). These defining components are not static, responsibility in heterogeneous classrooms, especially for students
but have been widely accepted across multiple research traditions with SEN, because they were not adequately prepared for this in their
(Emmer and Sabornie, 2015). Depending on the approach or concept, basic teacher training (Pijl, 2010). In most cases, however, research
there is a different focus on the components. While Scott and shows that it is not the resources or the severity of the disability that
Nakamura (2022) highlight the importance of effective instruction, matters, but the teacher’s attitudes and the learned pedagogical action
Marzano and Marzano (2003) emphasize that the teacher-student patterns (Soodak et al., 1998; Buchner and Gebhardt, 2011;
relationship is an essential foundation for effective classroom Gebhardt, 2018).
management. With their focus on classroom management in Effective classroom management has a positive effect on social
technology-rich classrooms, Johler et al. (2022) also confirmed the acceptance in the classroom (Garrote et al., 2020). A positive
critical importance of leadership, good teacher-student relationships, classroom behavioral climate is a necessary prerequisite for the
and teacher adaptability in taking on the role of a learner. Effective successful implementation of inclusion (Hoffmann et al., 2021). The
approaches to classroom management are characterized by a focus on well-being of the students not only depends on how the teachers shape
proactive, preventive procedures rather than reactive ones the relationships and the values they bring with them, but also on the
(Korpershoek et al., 2016). Although the various concepts have prevailing values in the school as a whole (Serke, 2019). As for the
different focuses on the three components, they all contain them. classroom situation, this means that teachers show an inclusive
There is currently no approach that places particular emphasis on an attitude and have the confidence to provide individualized support to
inclusive perspective. heterogeneous learning groups. It would be negative if the teacher
Several assessment tools have been established for classroom rejected people with disabilities or treated everyone alike without
management: the Linz Classroom Leadership Diagnostic paying attention to the individual learning requirements. Children

Frontiers in Education 02 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

with SEN may, at first glance, appear to place an additional burden on having completed their internship and receive feedback in the form of
regular teachers and exhibit challenging behavioral patterns, but, in the mean of the responses to the three scales, ATS, RS, and BMS. For
inclusive education, all individuals are entitled to well-prepared self-assessment purposes to improve their own teaching, student
inclusive teaching, well-designed classroom management strategies teachers or teaching staff can use the self-assessment version
and practices. This is beneficial for all students, but especially for of InClass.
students with SEN (Lane et al., 2006). In order to incorporate an inclusive perspective and to meet the
We recognized the need for an instrument that considers inclusion individual needs and learning requirements of all students, the
and participation in university teaching, supervised internships, and Adaptive Teaching Scale (ATS) includes the following elements:
pedagogical practice. To address this, we developed the “Scale for record of the students’ learning levels, feedback to the students on the
Classroom Management in Inclusive Schools (InClass)” (Lutz et al., basis of their learning development and individual improvement,
2023). While our instrument builds on the categories of the LDK adaption of support materials, design of an accessible, barrier-free,
(Krammer et al., 2021), it additionally focuses on the heterogeneity of and understandable learning environment, use of linguistic aids and
students. The aim is to support the development of the personality and strongly ritualized and structured lesson phases, introduction of new
the learning process of all students, taking into account their specific procedures and ways of working to be mastered by all students. The
needs. Although we mainly refer to students with and without SEN in Relationship Scale (RS) focuses on methods of actively supporting the
the following sections, InClass can also be used when there is a teacher-student relationship, using a nonjudgmental and
broader concept of inclusion. In this context, inclusion is often applied nonstereotypical language in the classroom, giving appreciative
to address learners with different heterogeneity characteristics such as feedback, valuing students’ individuality, promoting positive
multilingualism or special needs (Rank and Frey, 2021). interaction and a sense of well-being in the classroom, and actively
When designing InClass, we ensured that the questionnaire working against exclusion and stigmatization in class. The Behavior
considers a broader inclusive and participatory perspective that takes Management Scale (BMS) includes items on maximizing the learning
into account the heterogeneity characteristics of all students and the time through transparent rules, adapting rules to suit the individual
working methods in inclusive education (Schurig et al., 2020). student, using principles of positive reinforcement and motivation,
Therefore, several experts in the field of inclusive and special education ensuring optimal use of student learning time, resolving critical
were involved in the development of the item pool. In addition to the situations with students after class, reacting calmly and clearly in
LDK, key concepts and principles of inclusion were used in the item critical situations, and providing support in emergency situations. Not
development process. The different items emphasize the importance every item on the scales is explicitly worded at the individual level. The
of addressing the needs of all learners and the individual needs of wording of an item either emphasizes the individual focus or
some to ensure quality education, as recommended by European highlights a class-level assessment that refers to all students in the
Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022). Core values class. An overview of the InClass items is given in Table 1.
of the Profile for Inclusive Teachers include valuing learner diversity A fourth scale with five items was developed in order to
and supporting all learners to promote the academic, practical, social, additionally assess how inclusion is implemented at the respective
and emotional learning of all learners (Evertson and Weinstein, 2006; school. This Inclusion Scale (INK) contains various statements about
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2012). the importance of inclusion at the school and how it has already been
This means, for example, creating a barrier-free learning environment incorporated into the school concepts. The individual items are listed
that is understandable to everyone, adopting a positive and in Table 2.
appreciative attitude toward students, and providing optimal support
for their learning.
InClass integrates the three well-established components of 4 Research questions
classroom management, namely engaging students in their learning
activities, creating a productive classroom climate by building positive The purpose of the internship in the study program is to allow
relationships, and preventing classroom disruptions in order to student teachers to gain hands-on teaching experience and to
maximize instructional time (Emmer and Sabornie, 2015). In recognize the qualities of good inclusive teaching. We have developed
accordance with these components, the names of the scales are as the InClass assessment tool so that such teaching can be observed
follows: Adaptive Teaching Scale (ATS), Relationship Scale (RS) and systematically and discussed in the accompanying course. InClass can
Behavior Management Scale (BMS). The Adaptive Teaching Scale be instrumental in this process by helping to raise awareness of
(ATS) centers on how teaching staff adapt their teaching to the classroom management in heterogeneous classrooms and focusing
heterogeneity of the students. The Relationship Scale (RS) focuses in attention on the necessary teacher behaviors and competencies. As
equal measure on developing and strengthening both the teacher- there is no instrument available that combines classroom management
student and the student–student relationships. The Behavior with a focus on inclusion, we developed an instrument under CC BY
Management Scale (BMS) aims to prevent classroom disruptions in license that considers the different components of classroom
order to maximize the individual learning time of all students. InClass management and also adopts an inclusive perspective and meets the
exists in two versions. One is for external observation [InKlass-F, needs and learning requirements of all students.
“Fremdbeobachtung” (Lutz et al., 2022a)], and the other is for self- In Germany and Austria, all teacher education programs include
assessment [InKlass-S, “Selbsteinschätzung” (Lutz et al., 2022b)]. The courses in education, instruction and didactics, and psychology, as
items in both versions do not differ in content. In this paper, we only well as several internships at different types of schools. It can
consider the scale for external assessment, namely that student be assumed that all student teachers have the same prerequisites in
teachers assess the classroom management of the teaching staff after regard to internships, since internships are part of university education

Frontiers in Education 03 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

in all disciplines. This provides a level playing field for the assessments, where their internship took place. They were never asked to reveal the
which makes it possible to evaluate the various InClass scales. location of the school or the names of the teachers evaluated.
Encouraging student teachers to anonymously evaluate teachers’ The instrument used in this study was the German version of
classroom management at the end of their internship can reveal InClass, namely the “Skala zur inklusiven Klassenführung
difficulties, for example, in understanding the items. The assessment (InKlass-F)” (Lutz et al., 2022a). The InClass assessment tool consists
of student teachers is of particular interest because the study by Weber of three scales with seven items each. The scales were formulated
and Greiner (2019) showed that, in terms of perceived challenges according to the essential components of classroom management and
during an internship, classroom management is the most important adapted to inclusive education. The items of the three scales [Adaptive
task that pre-service teachers face during their first teaching internship. Teaching Scale (ATS), Relationship Scale (RS), Behavior Management
School systems vary from country to country. Since special Scale (BMS)] are presented in Table 1. English translations of the
education schools or separate classes exist in some countries and are items are provided for illustrative purposes. Only German items were
likely to be maintained at a low percentage, we decided to apply the subjected to empirical analysis. Responses were collected on a five-
instrument in elementary and special schools to measure its reliability point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “does not apply” to 5 = “always
in different school settings. We were intent on investigating whether true/daily”.
there were differences in student teachers’ assessments depending on The student teachers who completed internships in elementary
the type of school in which their internship took place. school were asked to estimate the implementation of inclusion with
The following research questions can be specified: five items, because an elementary school implements inclusive
education very differently. The items on the Inclusion Scale (INK)
- Q1: Does InClass measure three latent factors that correspond to were assessed using an identical Likert scale and are further presented
the three scales of classroom management? in Table 2.
- Q2: Do the three scales have acceptable fit in confirmatory
factor analysis?
- Q3: Are there differences in the assessment of classroom 5.3 Results of the pilot study
management by the student teachers in relation to the school
type in which their internship took place? During a pilot phase, student teachers in their internships (N = 79)
from Southern Germany and Western Austria evaluated InClass. The
internal consistency of the three scales was satisfying, with Cronbach’s
alpha for the Adaptive Teaching Scale αATS = 0.83, for the Relationship
5 Methods Scale αRS = 0.85 and for the Behavior Management Scale αBMS = 0.78.
Pearson’s correlation showed a significant, positive relationship
5.1 Procedure between all three scales measured, with the lowest correlation between
ATS and RS being r = 0.63 (p < 0.001) and the highest correlation
Teacher education programs in Germany and Austria include between RS and BMS being r = 0.73 (p < 0.001). The initial results
several internships in different types of schools as well as courses in suggest that InClass is an instrument that measures the three
education, instruction and didactics. It can be assumed that all student dimensions of classroom management economically, reliably, and
teachers have the same prerequisites in regard to internships, since validly. The items were not changed after the pilot phase.
internships are part of the university education in all disciplines.
Therefore, it was assumed that all student teachers who wished to
participate in the study would be able to complete InClass and to 5.4 Participants
evaluate the classroom management of the teaching staff they
observed in their internships. After finishing InClass, student teachers A total of 480 student teachers (89% female and 11% male), 71
receive feedback in the form of the mean of the responses to the three student teachers from the Austrian state of Vorarlberg (15%) and 409
scales, ATS, RS, and BMS. student teachers from two German states (36% Bavaria, 50%
Using the InClass instrument, student teachers at various Thuringia), participated, all of whom assessed a previously completed
universities in Germany and Austria were asked to anonymously internship. Of those participating, 141 studied special education and
assess the classroom management of the teaching staff in the 332 elementary education. The largest group of student teachers (250)
internships they had completed. For this purpose, they were invited was in their first two semesters, 138 were in semesters 3 to 6, and 92
in regular courses such as pedagogy seminars and through open had studied more than six semesters.
invitations from April to June 2023, with their participation being
recommended but voluntary. The survey was conducted using
SoSciSurvey software. 5.5 Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the

5.2 Instruments three-factor structure of InClass. The three classroom management
scales were operationalized as a multidimensional confirmatory factor
In the study, student teachers were asked about their place of model. Items were presented digitally and in a fixed order. Student
study, field and semester of study, and gender. In addition, student teachers were asked to rate the statements. Student teachers who
teachers were invited to provide information about the type of school completed an elementary school internship were also asked to assess

Frontiers in Education 04 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

TABLE 1 Overview of raw items (*items removed).

Item and scale Items translated into English Original German item wording
ATS 1 Teaching staff record students’ learning levels and needs on an Die Lernstände und bedürfnisse der Schüler:innen erfasst die Lehrperson
individualized and ongoing basis. individualisiert und fortlaufend.

ATS 2* Teaching staff give feedback to the students mainly on the basis of Rückmeldungen und Bewertungen der Schüler:innen gibt die Lehrperson
their learning development and individual improvement. vorwiegend nach der Lernentwicklung und individuellen Verbesserung
der Schüler:innen.

ATS 3* Teaching staff adapt worksheets, support materials, and assessment Arbeitsblätter, Fördermaterial und Leistungserhebungen (Tests) adaptiert
tests according to the needs of all students to ensure the fullest die Lehrperson nach den Bedürfnissen aller Schüler:innen, so dass eine
possible participation. möglichst vollständige Teilhabe gewährleistet ist.

ATS 4 Teaching staff design the learning environment to be accessible, Die Lernumgebung gestaltet die Lehrperson für alle Schüler:innen
barrier-free and understandable for all students. zugänglich, barrierefrei und verständlich.

ATS 5 Teaching staff purposefully use linguistic aids (pictograms, symbols, Sprachliche Entlastungen (Piktogramme, Symbole, Wortspeicher,
posters, etc.) in the classroom. Satzstarter, Lernplakate etc.) setzt die Lehrperson gezielt im Unterricht
ein.

ATS 6 Teaching staff strongly ritualize and structure lesson phases and Unterrichtsphasen und wechsel gestaltet die Lehrperson stark ritualisiert
transitions. und strukturiert.

ATS 7 Teaching staff purposefully introduce new procedures, methods and Neue Abläufe, Methoden und Arbeitsweisen bahnt die Lehrperson gezielt
ways of working to be mastered by all students. an, so dass sie von allen Schüler:innen sicher beherrscht werden.

RS 1* Teaching staff use methods to actively support the teacher-student Die Lehrperson wendet Methoden an, um aktiv die Lehrer:innen-
relationship. Schüler:innen-Beziehung zu fördern.

RS 2* Teaching staff use prejudice-conscious and stereotype-free language Die Lehrperson verwendet im Unterricht eine vorurteilsbewusste und
in the classroom. stereotypfreie Sprache.

RS 3 Teaching staff give feedback to all students in an appreciative Rückmeldung gibt die Lehrperson allen Schüler:innen wertschätzend und
manner and only address differences in order to meet needs. thematisiert Unterschiede nur, um Bedürfnissen gerecht zu werden.

RS 4 Teaching staff make sure that all students value their fellow students’ Die Lehrperson achtet darauf, dass alle Schüler:innen sich untereinander
individuality. in ihrer Individualität wertschätzen.

RS 5 Teaching staff support positive interaction in class. Die Lehrperson fördert in der Klasse ein positives Miteinander.

RS 6 Teaching staff ensure that all students feel comfortable in class. Die Lehrperson sorgt dafür, dass sich alle Schüler:innen in der Klasse
wohlfühlen.

RS 7 Teaching staff actively work against exclusion and stigmatization in Die Lehrperson geht aktiv gegen Ausgrenzungen und Stigmatisierung in
class. der Klasse vor.

BMS 1 Teaching staff make sure that the rules agreed upon to be applied in Die Lehrperson achtet darauf, dass den Schüler:innen die in der Klasse
class are transparent to the students. geltenden Regeln und Vereinbarungen transparent sind.

BMS 2* Teaching staff adapt rules to suit individual students. Für einzelne Schüler:innen passt die Lehrperson die Regeln an.

BMS 3 Teaching staff use principles of positive reinforcement and Die Lehrperson setzt auf das Prinzip der positiven Verstärkung und
motivation. schafft motivierende Anreize.

BMS 4 Teaching staff ensure that all students make optimal use of their Die Lehrperson sorgt dafür, dass jede:r Schüler:in die Lernzeit optimal
learning time. nutzt.

BMS 5 Teaching staff resolve critical situations with students after lessons. Die Lehrperson klärt kritische Situationen mit den Schüler:innen
außerhalb des Unterrichtsgeschehens.

BMS 6 In critical situations, teaching staff react calmly and clearly. In Grenzsituationen reagiert die Lehrperson besonnen und klar.

BMS 7* Support is provided in emergency situations (training room, school Es gibt eine Unterstützung in Notsituationen (Trainingsraum,
social work, etc.). Schulsozialarbeit etc.).

the degree of inclusion implementation. Therefore, another several sample-size-independent fit indices such as the comparative
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for a four-factor model of fit index (CFI), the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR),
the InClass Scales with Inclusion Scale (INK). and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were
The structural equation models were computed using lavaan evaluated. CFI and TLI values >0.95 indicate an adequate fit of the
(Rosseel, 2012) in R. A robust maximum likelihood estimator was data to the theoretical model. In addition, RMSEA values <0.06 and
used. To assess the fit of the data to the CFA, several model fit indices SRMR values <0.08 were suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) as good
were consulted. Besides χ2 and its associated degrees of freedom (df), cutoff values.

Frontiers in Education 05 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations for the Inclusion-Scale (INK).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
INK 1 The school promotes inclusion. 3.47 0.98 –

The school acknowledges the

importance of inclusion and
INK 2 3.28 1.10 0.70** –
has thus anchored it in the
school profile and all concepts.

INK 3 The school practices inclusion. 3.56 0.93 0.75** 0.70** –

The school enables all children

INK 4 3.77 0.93 0.60** 0.50** 0.60** –
to participate to a high degree.

The school leaves no child

INK 5 3.72 0.96 0.47** 0.43** 0.45** 0.73** –
behind.
* indicates p < 0.05. ** indicates p < 0.01. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively.

6 Results reliability in terms of internal consistency. As can be seen in Figure 1,

the standardized factor loadings indicate an adequate model fit to the
6.1 Confirmatory factor analysis empirical data as the standardized factor loadings range from 0.49 to
0.89 (ATS: 0.65 ≤ λ ≤ 0.74; RS: 0.73 ≤ λ ≤ 0.89; BMS: 0.49 ≤ λ ≤ 0.73).
Since classroom management consists of three main components, A one-dimensional model (robust CFI = 0.81 and TLI = 0.77) and a
InClass was designed with three dimensions, similar to the LDK role two-dimensional model (robust CFI = 0.94 and TLI = 0.93) were also
model instrument or other classroom management models. The test calculated, which had poorer fit values. The CFA results confirm a
statistics with seven items per scale yielded the following results: three-factor structure of InClass. All latent correlations were
χ2(185) = 525.83, p ≤ 0.001 (χ2/df ratio = 2.84). The robust CFI (0.92) significant (p < .01) and positive. Within the scales, RS was most
and TLI (0.91) are slightly acceptable (> 0.95), as is the robust RMSEA strongly 300 related to BMS (r = .74). The correlations between ATS
(0.07). The SRMR (0.05) is acceptable. The measures of internal and RS and between ATS and BMS were 301 r = .63.
consistency are αATS = 0.87, αRS = 0.90, αBMS = 0.78, which means that the
individual scales have good reliability in terms of internal consistency.
The standardized factor loadings range from 0.39 to 0.87 (ATS: 6.2 Mean score comparisons
0.68 ≤ λ ≤ 0.76; RS: 0.60 ≤ λ ≤ 0.87; BMS: 0.39 ≤ λ ≤ 0.75).
The scales were shortened by two items each to obtain better fit In all three scales, student teachers who assessed teachers in
values. A shorter and empirically more similar scale was found in the special education schools (MATS = 4.2, SDATS = 0.6; MRS = 4.3, SDRS = 0.7;
five-point scale. Therefore, the best theoretical and empirical items MBMS = 4.2, SDBMS = 0.7) rated them higher than student teachers who
from the seven-item scales were selected. assessed teachers in elementary schools (MATS = 3.8, SDATS = 0.8;
The following items were dropped: Item ATS 2 was excluded due MRS = 4.1, SDRS = 0.8; MBMS = 3.9, SDBMS = 0.7). There is a significant
to its wording, which includes “giving feedback to the student,” effect of the assessed school type on ATS, F (1, 478) = 34.1, p < 0.001,
making it very similar to item RS 3. In addition, for item ATS 3 it can on BMS, F (1, 478) = 9.7, p = 0.002, and on RS, F (1, 478) = 8.7,
be assumed that the addition “to ensure the fullest possible p = 0.003.
participation” in the item wording may have led to too little selectivity
with regard to the Relationship Scale. Items RS 1 and RS 2 were also
removed. While item RS 1 focuses on a too general and not very 6.3 Confirmatory factor analysis –
concrete implementation of relationship support, item RS 2 dwells elementary school
mainly on language and less on building a positive relationship. Items
BMS 2 and BMS 7 were also deleted, as both the individual adaptation The 366 student teachers who completed an elementary school
of rules and the support provided in emergency situations are not internship were presented with five items asking them to assess the
sufficiently seen by student teachers in internships and therefore implementation of inclusive education (see Table 2).
cannot be adequately assessed. The internal consistency of the Inclusion Scale (INK) was
For better model fit, correlations between two items were allowed, satisfactory (αINK = 0.88, item whole correlation between 0.64 and
as the items use remarkably similar words or target the same aspects. 0.85), so that a separate model was only calculated for the elementary
Items ATS 6 and ATS 7 are aimed at the structure and established school. The test statistic showed an acceptable statistic
procedures in the classroom. χ2(163) = 404.17, p ≤ 0.001 (χ2/df ratio = 2.48). However, the
The test statistics with five items per scale showed an acceptable psychometric values are slightly worse than the recommended limits.
statistic χ2(86) = 186.37, p ≤ 0.001 (χ2/df ratio = 2.17). For a three- The values for robust CFI (0.93) and TLI (0.92) are too low. The value
dimensional model, the robust CFI (0.97) and TLI (0.96) are for RMSEA (0.07) is too high, while the SRMR (0.06) remains stable
acceptable (> 0.95), while the robust RMSEA (0.06) and SRMR (0.04) and good. The internal consistency measures were αATS = 0.84,
remain good. The measures of internal consistency are αATS = 0.84, αRS = 0.91, αBMS = 0.80, αINK = 0.88, which means that the individual
αRS = 0.91, αBMS = 0.79, meaning that the individual scales have good scales have good reliable values in terms of internal consistency. As

Frontiers in Education 06 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

FIGURE 1
Confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor-model of the InClass scales (special and elementary schools).

can be seen in Figure 2, the standardized factor loadings are quite classroom management assessment tool that focuses on heterogeneous
similar to the standardized factor loadings in Figure 1, which also learning groups and meets the needs of all students, was reached. In
indicates an adequate model fit to the empirical data. The standardized almost all cases, a high level of understanding of the items was
factor loadings range from 0.49 to 0.89 (ATS: 0.64 ≤ λ ≤ 0.72; RS: achieved by the student teachers.
0.72 ≤ λ ≤ 0.89; BMS: 0.49 ≤ λ ≤ 0.74, INK: 0.64 ≤ λ ≤ 0.85). All latent InClass is particularly useful for student teachers to assess
correlations were significant (p < 0.01) and positive. The correlation internship experiences in different schools in terms of inclusive
between RS and ATS was stronger (r = 0.70) compared to that of RS classroom management. After completing InClass, each student
and INK (r = 0.51). Among the scales, BMS had the highest correlation teacher was given the mean of the responses to the three scales, ATS,
with both RS (r = 0.84) and ATS (r = 0.76), while the correlation with RS, and BMS. The possible values were: 1 = disagree to 3 = neutral to
INK was lower (r = 0.52). The correlation between ATS and INK was 5 = agree. The students were able to compare these mean scores with
r = 0.66. their peers and discuss in the seminars which scale had received a
higher score. In this way, differences between schools could
be identified and reflected upon. The analysis can enable them to draw
7 Discussion comparative conclusions from the different observations or derive key
insights for their future work. InClass may also be useful for student
In order to provide appropriate support for students with and teachers in terms of self-assessment or for the mutual assessment
without SEN, teachers need a specific attitude or belief, knowledge or among fellow student teachers.
understanding, and competencies for managing heterogeneous classes In order to make the scale economically usable, six items could
and using effective teaching methods (Pozas et al., 2020; European be removed from the 21 items. By shortening the scales by two items
Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022). It is each, good fit values could be achieved, which allows for a more time-
particularly crucial to support novice teachers in developing a efficient use of the instrument. This also led to a concretization of the
professional classroom management approach (Wedde et al., 2023). classroom management methods that can be actively used by the
Classroom management encompasses the various methods and teaching staff. The Adaptive Teaching Scale (ATS) now includes five
activities that shape the learning environment, enabling both items that require intentional design of instruction and the learning
curricular and emotional and social learning (Evertson and Weinstein, environment by the teaching staff to intensively support individual
2006). The main goal of the current study, namely, to develop a new learning. The remaining five items of the Relationship Scale (RS)

Frontiers in Education 07 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

FIGURE 2
Confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor-model of the InClass scales with Inclusion Scale (INK) (elementary school only).

describe active support methods for all students to strengthen positive that the items were based on key components of classroom
teacher-student and student-student relationships. The Behavior management (Wang et al., 1993; Simonsen et al., 2008; Scott and
Management Scale (BMS) focuses on rule transparency, positive Nakamura, 2022). These components are essential for the learning
motivation, optimal use of learning time, and disruption prevention of students with SEN: maximizing the individual learning time,
to maximize individual learning time for all students. preventing classroom disruptions, individualizing learning, and
The instrument has shown good reliability in the assessment of proactive behavior management practices. In special schools,
teachers in special and elementary schools. Not only can it be used in greater attention can be devoted to these aspects as students are
practice with the three InClass dimensions (ATS, RS, BMS), but also under less pressure to perform and teachers can spend more time
with the Inclusion Scale (INK). Pearson’s correlation showed a establishing routines. These elements also form the basis of direct
significant, positive relationship between all scales measured, instruction, an approach that is particularly effective for children
confirming the results of the pilot study. This is likely due to the fact with learning difficulties (Grünke, 2006). Another explanation for
that the scales were formulated according to the essential components the identification of a higher rating for special education teachers
of classroom management and strongly aligned with other classroom compared to regular education teachers could be class size. Classes
leadership questionnaires such as the LDK (Krammer et al., 2021). in elementary schools are generally larger than those in special
The results of further analyses showed that the assessed education. Therefore, ensuring that all students feel comfortable in
teachers in special education schools were rated higher than the the class or making the most of their learning time may be easier
teachers in elementary schools. This can be explained by the fact for a special education teacher.

Frontiers in Education 08 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

Although the confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor Data availability statement
model of the InClass scales combined with the Inclusion Scale (INK)
produced slightly inferior results compared to the three-factor model The datasets presented in this study can be found in online
of InClass, the test statistic yielded an acceptable value for an initial repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession
examination. InClass is suitable for the usage in special education and, number(s) can be found at: [Link]
more so, in inclusive settings, to assess classroom management. The
strength of the present study is the validation of the three classroom
management scales for heterogeneous learning groups. As inclusive Ethics statement
education varies not only between countries, but also within a country,
down to individual schools (Grünke and Cavendish, 2016; Krämer Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving
et al., 2021), it is important to have a tool that addresses the needs of humans because the research was conducted in accordance with
all students and can therefore be used in different educational APA ethical procedures and guidelines. Participants provided
contexts. InClass is able to show whether all students have access to informed written consent to participate in this study and could
learning through adaptive teaching. It provides feedback on the terminate participation at any point without any disadvantage to
strengthening of the teacher-student and the student–student themselves and data were treated confidentially. The survey was
relationships and the existing prevention of classroom disruptions in approved by the university’s data protection officer. Because no
order to maximize the individual learning time of all students. experimental manipulation or invasive procedure took place and
At present, the validity of the instrument is still limited, as further since no highly sensitive data were collected, a full ethics application
studies are needed to confirm the structure and results. Further to the University Ethics Committee was not required. The studies
development of the instrument is also possible and desirable for other were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and
researchers thanks to the free license. We surveyed student teachers institutional requirements. The participants provided their written
evaluating the teachers they observed in their most recent internship. informed consent to participate in this study.
To assess the full effectiveness of InClass, teacher perspectives should
as well be considered. It would also be useful to obtain student
teachers’ assessments of the observed teachers directly during their Author contributions
internship. Retrospective evaluation can be difficult or may lead to
slight distortions. It may also be useful for student teachers to assess SL: Writing – original draft. AF: Writing – review & editing. AR:
themselves in terms of their classroom management. For this Writing – review & editing. MG: Writing – review & editing.
purpose, guided internships are necessary, as called for by Sokal et al.
(2013). They emphasize the importance of high-quality inclusive
internships, which they see not only as an essential feature of effective Funding
teacher preparation programs, but also as a way to increase teacher
efficacy in classroom management. In guided internships, it would The author(s) declare financial support was received for the
also be possible to have an in-depth discussion with the student research and/or authorship. The publication of this article was funded
teachers about the evaluation criteria of InClass. It is important that by the University of Regensburg.
student teachers consider every single student in the class in their
assessment. In the case of class-level formulations, all students are
part of the assessment, including those who have special needs or Acknowledgments
attention requirements. From a methodological perspective, the
results are limited by sample size and degrees of freedom. In CFA, a We would like to express our special thanks for the support of
small sample size and low degrees of freedom often result in a larger colleagues who have contributed to the development of InClass.
sample could be used to verify whether the model fit improves.
Effective classroom management that considers all students in a
class and their needs will be increasingly relevant in the future, Conflict of interest
especially in inclusive settings. In this context, instruments such as
InClass are important tools for practice and research, and can also The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
be central in teacher training. In our study, we surveyed student absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
teachers who assessed evaluating the teachers they observed in their be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
most recent internship. In future planned studies, we aim to gather
assessments from student teachers directly during their internships.
In this vein, our specific plan is to train educators in the use of scales Publisher’s note
to prepare them for teaching in inclusive and heterogeneous settings.
InClass can contribute to incorporating into teacher education the All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
aspect of thinking and acting inclusively throughout. In an ever- and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations,
growing diverse world, it is crucial to provide effective education to or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
every child. Hence, there is a pertinent need for inclusive classroom that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
management and individualized learning. manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Frontiers in Education 09 [Link]

Lutz et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1316059

References
Buchner, T., and Gebhardt, M. (2011). “Zur schulischen Integration in Österreich— Lutz, S., Frey, A., Rank, A., and Gebhardt, M. (2023). Scale for classroom management
historische Entwicklung, Forschung und Status Quo” Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, vol. in inclusive schools (InClass) Regensburg: Universität Regensburg. doi: 10.5283/
62, 298–304. [Link] epub.53929
Integration_in_Osterreich_Zur_schulischen_Integration_in_Osterreich_historische_
Marzano, R., and Marzano, J. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educ.
Entwicklung_Forschung_und_Status_quo
Leadersh. 61, 6–13.
Emmer, E. T., and Sabornie, E. J. (2015). “Introduction to the second edition” in
Mayr, J., Eder, F., Fartacek, W., Lenske, G., and Pflanzl, B. (2018). Linzer Diagnosebogen
Handbook of classroom management. ed. E. T. Emmer (New York: Routledge), 3–12.
zur Klassenführung: Version LDK-P-LPG. Available at: [Link]
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2012). Profile for [Link] (Accessed February 15, 2024).
inclusive teachers. Odense, Denmark.
Mayr, J., Lenske, G., Pflanzl, B., and Seethaler, E. (2021). “Schülerrückmeldungen
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022). Profile for wirksam machen. Ein Werkstattbericht aus der Arbeit mit dem Linzer Konzept der
inclusive teacher professional learning: Including all education professionals in teacher Klassenführung” in Quo vadis Forschung zu Schülerrückmeldungen zum Unterricht. eds.
professional learning for inclusion. Odense, Denmark. K. Göbel, C. Wyss, K. Neuber and M. Raaflaub (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden), 67–93.
Evertson, C. M., and Weinstein, C. S. (2006). “Classroom management as a field
of inquiry” in Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and Miesera, S., DeVries, J. M., Jungjohann, J., and Gebhardt, M. (2018). Correlation
contemporary issues. eds. C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (New York, NY: between attitudes, concerns, self-efficacy and teaching intentions in inclusive education
Routledge), 3–15. evidence from German pre-service teachers using international scales. J. Res. Spec. Educ.
Needs 19, 103–114. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12432
Frey, A. (2021). “Klassenführung in der Inklusion” in Professionalisierung für ein
inklusives Schulsystem. eds. A. Rank, A. Frey and M. Munser-Kiefer (Bad Heilbrunn: Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., and Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring
Klinkhardt), 34–70. system: CLASS; manual. Baltimore, Md. Brookes.
Garrote, A., Felder, F., Krähenmann, H., Schnepel, S., Sermier Dessemontet, R., and Perry, D. B., Bergen, T., and Brekelmans, M. (2006). “Convergence and divergence
Moser Opitz, E. (2020). Social acceptance in inclusive classrooms: the role of teacher between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional behaviour in Dutch
attitudes toward inclusion and classroom management. Front. Educ. 5:582873. doi: secondary education” in Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments.
10.3389/feduc.2020.582873 eds. D. Fisher and M. S. Khine (Hackensack, N.J World Scientific), 125–160. doi:
10.1142/9789812774651_0006
Gebhardt, M. (2018). “Einstellungen von Lehrkräften zur schulischen Inklusion
in Deutschland” in Leistung und Wohlbefinden in der Schule: Herausforderung Pijl, S. J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: some reflections from the
Inklusion. eds. K. Rathmann and K. Hurrelmann (Weinheim: Beltz Juventa), Netherlands. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 10, 197–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01165.x
340–351. Pozas, M., Letzel, V., and Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction:
Gebhardt, M., Schurig, M., Suggate, S., Scheer, D., and Capovilla, D. (2022). Social, exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs
systemic, individual-medical or cultural? Questionnaire on the concepts of disability among 20, 217–230. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12481
teacher education students. Front. Educ. 6:701987. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.701987 Rank, A., and Frey, A. (2021). “Einleitung” in Professionalisierung für ein inklusives
Grünke, M. (2006). Zur Effektivität von Fördermethoden bei Kindern und Schulsystem. eds. A. Rank, A. Frey and M. Munser-Kiefer (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt),
Jugendlichen mit Lernstörungen. Kindheit und Entwicklung 15, 239–254. doi: 11–15.
10.1026/0942-5403.15.4.239 Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Soft.
Grünke, M., and Cavendish, W. (2016). Learning disabilities around the globe: making 48, 1–38. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
sense of the heterogeneity of the different viewpoints. Learn. Disabil. Contemp. J. 14, 1–8. Schurig, M., Weiß, S., Kiel, E., Heimlich, U., and Gebhardt, M. (2020). Assessment of
[Link] the quality of inclusive schools a short form of the quality scale of inclusive school
Hoffmann, L., Närhi, V., Savolainen, H., and Schwab, S. (2021). Classroom behavioural development (QU!S-S) – reliability, factorial structure and measurement invariance. Int.
climate in inclusive education – a study on secondary students’ perceptions. J. Res. Spec. J. Incl. Educ., 1–16. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1862405
Educ. Needs 21, 312–322. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12529 Scott, T. M., and Nakamura, J. (2022). “Effective instruction as the basis for classroom
Hornby, G. (2014). “Inclusive special education: the need for a new theory” in Inclusive management” in Handbook of classroom management. eds. E. J. Sabornie and D. L.
special education. ed. G. Hornby (New York, NY: Springer New York), 1–18. Espelage (New York: Routledge), 15–30.

Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure Serke, B. (2019). Schulisches Wohlbefinden in inklusiven und exklusiven Schulmodellen.
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. Eine empirische Studie zur Wahrnehmung und Förderung des schulischen Wohlbefindens
J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 von Kindern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf Lernen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Johler, M., Krumsvik, R. J., Bugge, H. E., and Helgevold, N. (2022). Teachers’ Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., and Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-
perceptions of their role and classroom management practices in a technology rich based practices in classroom management: considerations for research to practice. Educ.
primary school classroom. Front. Educ. 7:841385. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.841385 Treat. Child. 31, 351–380. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0007

Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., Boer, H. D., van Kuijk, M., and Doolaard, S. (2016). A Slater, E. V., and Main, S. (2020). A measure of classroom management: validation of
meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom a pre-service teacher self-efficacy scale. J. Educ. Teach. 46, 616–630. doi:
management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational 10.1080/02607476.2020.1770579
outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 643–680. doi: 10.3102/0034654315626799 Sokal, L., Woloshyn, D., and Funk-Unrau, S. (2013). How important is practicum to
Krämer, S., Möller, J., and Zimmermann, F. (2021). Inclusive education of students pre-service teacher development for inclusive teaching? Effects on efficacy in classroom
with general learning difficulties: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 91, 432–478. doi: management. Alberta J. Educ. Res. 59, 285–298. doi: 10.55016/ojs/ajer.v59i2.55680
10.3102/0034654321998072 Soodak, L. C., and McCarthy, M. R. (2006). “Classroom management in inclusive
Krammer, G., Pflanzl, B., Lenske, G., and Mayr, J. (2021). Assessing quality of teaching settings” in Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary
from different perspectives: measurement invariance across teachers and classes. Educ. issues. eds. C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (New York, NY: Routledge), 461–489.
Assess. 26, 88–103. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2020.1858785 Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., and Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school
attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. J. Spec. Educ. 31, 480–497.
Lane, K., Falk, K., and Wehby, J. (2006). “Classroom management in special education
doi: 10.1177/002246699803100405
classrooms and resource rooms” in Handbook of classroom management: Research,
practice, and contemporary issues. eds. C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (New York, United Nations (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Available
NY: Routledge), 439–460. at: [Link]
persons-with-disabilities/[Link]
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Smith-Menzies, L., and Lane, K. S. (2022). “Classroom
[Accessed September 22, 2023].
management to support students with disabilities: empowering general and special
educators” in Handbook of classroom management. eds. E. J. Sabornie and D. L. Espelage Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., and Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for
(New York: Routledge), 499–516. school learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 63, 249–294. doi: 10.2307/1170546
Lutz, S., Frey, A., Rank, A., and Gebhardt, M. (2022a). Skala zur inklusiven Weber, K. E., and Greiner, F. (2019). Development of pre-service teachers' self-efficacy
Klassenführung – Fremdbeobachtung (InKlass-F) Regensburg: Universität Regensburg. beliefs and attitudes towards inclusive education through first teaching experiences. J.
doi: 10.5283/epub.52277 Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 19, 73–84. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12479
Lutz, S., Frey, A., Rank, A., and Gebhardt, M. (2022b). Skala zur inklusiven Wedde, S., Busse, A., Bosse, D., and Gold, B. (2023). Comparing teaching examples:
Klassenführung – Selbsteinschätzung (InKlass-S) Regensburg: Universität Regensburg. effects on the solution quality and learning outcomes of student teachers' professional
doi: 10.5283/epub.52269 vision of classroom management. Front. Educ. 8, 1–14. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.125768

Frontiers in Education 10 [Link]